Cryptography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for software developers, mathematicians and others interested in cryptography. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Assuming I had to distribute salt+ciphertext together over an insecure channel, isn't it better to store the salt encrypted?

By encrypted I mean with a block cipher and with key and IV derived from the same passphrase used to encrypt the original text.

I've been told that leaving salt unencrypted is the way to go. Why? Why not encrypt? Isn't it always better?

share|improve this question
Encrypting the salt either uses another salt, or lets an attacker use pre-computation $\hspace{1.5 in}$ for the first part of each decryption attempt. $\:$ – Ricky Demer Aug 30 '12 at 5:28
up vote 5 down vote accepted

No, it is not better. To send the salt encrypted, one would need a key and IV (another salt) to encrypt it. This adds unnecessary complexity as the security of the ciphertext does not depend on the salt being kept private. So, encrypting the salt adds negligible security yet adds a fair amount of complexity. Keeping things as simple as possible is often a good rule of thumb.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.